Game 2: Paul Pierce's Knee Seems Fine, But What Do I Know?

In the long-form tradition of The Rotation, Tom Ziller considers the action the morning after each game of the NBA Finals.

If there's a fitting conclusion to the international mystery Paul Pierce: Wounded Knee, 28 points and 8 assists is it. Pierce came out excellent from the opening seconds -- with six points in the first four minutes -- and kept the game alive until the closing bell (ending L.A.'s hopes with a block of Sasha Vujacic's trey with 14 seconds left). And there was plenty of Pierce in between.

That Pierce came out so strong after talking/blogging heads wasted so much energy arguing about the injury seems like a big ol' joke on all of us (a joke the Lakers were in on.) We have witnessed a miracle, or Pierce is a big fat liar.

The broadcast team only mentioned a Pierce grimace once, and only the slightest of limps appeared on-screen.

If the guy's injured, that's amazing. That's ... miraculous, you might say. Pierce put up terrific numbers, but his whole aura of glee and fancy told of some weight being lifted off his shoulders. This is one of the more intense and passionate players of this era, and he never looked angry or worried. He looked happy. Paul Pierce never looks happy. He almost looked surprised ... perhaps surprised he felt no pain?

The camp who thinks Pierce oversold his injury beginning immediately after Game 1 found plenty of ammunition during Game 2. Knee injuries are a plague upon NBA players, especially the sort who don't rely on standing in a spot and heaving bombs. Pierce played active, fighting into the lane on and off the ball, mixing it up on loose balls, and playing stand-up defense on various Lakers. Guys with sprained knees don't attack the basket, doubters would argue. Guys with sprained knees don't block shots.

Mark Jackson argued during the telecast that "players aren't smart enough to plan an elaborate frame-job on an injury." I don't think anyone has argued that Pierce's knee did not actually hurt when it buckled underneath him. But no one is saying Pierce faked this thing from the get-go.

The question about Pierce's motives come from the long weekend of uncertainty, the lack of an MRI, and the wishy-washy claims from Pierce regarding the severity. One minutes, it's swelling and it's hurt and "an angel said, 'Hey, you're going to be OK.'" The next minute? "I don't even feel any pain!" After that performance it's hard to buy any of it.

Maybe it doesn't matter, since it appears the Lakers knew Pierce was fine all along. And injured, not injured, dying -- no matter what, Pierce had a tremendous game. You don't get extra points for degree of difficulty, so it doesn't really matter. At all.

But if The Truth left everyone in the lurch all weekend for zits and goggles, he deserves some comeuppance.

And One

Leon Powe might have been Boston's best bench player all season. Both PER (21+) and the per-40s (22 & 11) would have said so. Why has he averaged less than 10 minutes a game since the second round? Ask Doc Rivers.

Something tells me he won't have to worry about DNP-CDs any more, though. The depth of Powe's excellence is hard to overstate -- he simply dominated when he was in the game. 21 points on only seven FGAs, in 15 minutes of play ... that's simply outrageous. He attacked the rim relentlessly, and seeing him matched with Rajon Rondo felt artistic.



Someone will crack a Jerome James joke over the next week, and good for them. Just know that this isn't a fluke: Powe is the truth. (Lowercase 't'.) He might not be glamorous or smooth, but dude's an unmitigated beast with the ball. A Jason Maxiell for the New Age.

(By the way, the race to claim preemptive dibs on Leon Powe advocacy has commenced. Allow me to enter this 2006 essay on Powe to the conversation. Folks in the Bay Area have talking about how good, how strong this kid is for a looooong time. The permanent fans he made here couldn't be more thrilled than to see him drawing Dr. J comparisons in the NBA Finals.)

Mapping the NBA gives Excel spreadsheets some balls.

The old adage that defense wins championships will get plenty of play today, but it's all horse pucky. Champions win championships, dangit; you can win with an elite offense or an elite defense, but most teams win with both.

In this series, though, we've got the great defense versus the great offense. While the Lakers have been able to score incredibly well most of the postseason, their defense has often been atrocious. Boston, on the other hand, has had a defense nearly beyond reproach, with an offense good enough to get by.

This map shows some various data points for each team. (And please denote the varying sample size issues; this map is for describing, not formulating.) Good offense performances will be found toward the right, and good defensive performances will be found up top.



As you can see, L.A.'s defense has been mediocre for a long time (save the San Antonio series) -- but Game 2 was simply awful for the team on defense. Boston's defense has carried the day, but Sunday night was no high point. (41 points in the fourth quarter ... the Celtics kept the Hawks and Cavaliers under 41 points for entire halves this spring.)

The breakout offensive performance in the fourth for L.A. gave them some hope going forward -- the Lakers will absolutely have to win with potent offense. Their defense couldn't put the brakes on a mediocre Denver offense in a four-game sweep, so hoping to halt a quality Boston onslaught (led by Pierce's dramatics and the unassailable performance of Rajon Rondo so far) seems tall cacti at this point. We'll see if the offense's enough in Game 3 in Los Angeles.